What Employees Really want

Results

1. Copyright (c) 2011 Chicago-Kent College of Law and Workplace Fairness Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journ-al 2011, Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal, 15 Empl. Rts. & Employ. Pol'y J. 237, 18405 words, ARTICLE:WHAT WORKERS REALLY WANT: VOICE, UNIONS, AND PERSONAL CONTRACTS, By Yuval Feldman, AmirFalk, Miri Katz*

Page 1

Return to List

1 of 1 DOCUMENT

Copyright (c) 2011 Chicago-Kent College of Law and Workplace FairnessEmployee Rights and Employment Policy Journal

2011

Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal

15 Empl. Rts. & Employ. Pol'y J. 237

LENGTH: 18405 words

ARTICLE: WHAT WORKERS REALLY WANT: VOICE, UNIONS, AND PERSONAL CONTRACTS

NAME: By Yuval Feldman, Amir Falk, Miri Katz*

BIO: * Bar-Ilan Faculty of Law, Bar Ilan Department of Psychology, We thank Marion Crain, Guy Davidov, SimonDeakin, Matt Finkin, Jacob Nussim and Marley Weiss for their comments. For their help in research, we thank ArikBen Simchon and Gilad Viner, for statistical analysis, Tamy Shterenhal. This research has benefited from a generousgrant from the EU Marie Currie Program.

LEXISNEXIS SUMMARY:... The Moderating Effect of Socio-Economic Strength After demonstrating the differences in function of influence andsatisfaction from the contract on preference for personal contracts versus collective agreements, we move to examinewhether these differences are relevant to employees with different socio-economic backgrounds. ... Challenges to theUnionized Voice Literature After exploring the individual-psychological attributes of voice (procedural justice, sense ofcontrol and influence at the workplace), and their alleged association with personal contracting, we aim to challengesome of the assumptions advocated by the unionized voice literature. ... Furthermore, although Freeman and Rogers'sargument concerning employees' motives for unionization might be accurate from a collective voice perspective, it maynot necessarily explain employees' motives from an individual voice perspective. ... From this perspective, it is unlikelythat unionized employees view unions mainly as tools for gaining individual voice, and their support for unions isprobably shaped by factors other than influence over unions' decisions, namely the unions' instrumentality in providingbetter working conditions.

TEXT:[*238]

I. Introduction

Various explanations have been suggested for the reasons that lead employees to join unions, and for the effects ofunionization on the labor market and on society as a whole. An influential perspective views unions as means forgreater a voice in dealing with employers and governments. n1 According to Freeman and Medoff's influential book,What Unions Do, unions provide employees ways to communicate with their employers from a standpoint of strength.n2 Freeman and Medoff view unions as political institutions that represent the will of their members and the interests ofthe [*239] lower-income and the disadvantaged, thereby putting pressure on employers and governments to takeemployees' interests into account, in their decision making. n3 In their book What Workers Want, Freeman and Rogersdescribed employees' aspiration for collective voice and influence to be one of the main motivations in joining unions.

Page 2

n4 This association between voice and unionization, advocated by Freeman and his colleagues, receives growing supportin the literature.

While the role of unions in empowering employees and providing them with greater voice in dealing withemployers will be analyzed in this study, the main purpose of this paper is to reexamine the association between voiceand unionization, and to show its complexity. In particular, by addressing voice from an institutional-collectiveperspective on the one hand, and from an individual-psychological perspective on the other hand, we are able toexamine this association from angles which are missing from the current literature dealing with unions.

The structure of the paper will therefore be as follows: First, we will describe the importance of voice at theworkplace and the association between voice and unionization, as advocated by Freeman and others. Then, we shallpresent theoretical perspectives that highlight the individual-psychological aspects of voice. In addition we will developan array of challenges to the association between voice and unionization. In that stage, we will describe our specifichypotheses and discuss the methodology used by us in conducting the survey. Following the methodological section, wewill present the main findings which are relevant to the comparison of individual versus collective approaches to voice.Finally, we will examine the legal policy implications of the empirical research as well as the theoretical approach tovoice suggested in this paper.

II. Voice at the Workplace

The level of the employee's voice n5 defined as the possibility for employees to express themselves and to make animpact over decisions at the workplace is considered by the organizational behavior literature to be a [*240] majorsource of empowerment for employees and society as a whole, and a benefit for employers as well. n6 Althoughresearch hasn't yet detected a direct causal link between voice and performance, current literature consistently reveals alink between having a voice and having a positive attitude towards the workplace, defined as employee satisfaction,commitment, and discretionary behavior. n7 Moreover, it has been suggested that providing workers with channels forvoice, results in improved productivity, when it is accompanied by managerial responsiveness to their requests. n8

Various suggestions were made with regard to how best to increase channels of voice in the workplace, whether throughunions, work councils, open door policies, and various other means. n9

A. The Association Between Voice and Unionization

Freeman and Rogers have written the most influential book on the topic of collective voice in the workplace, entitledWhat Workers Want. n10 In this book, Freeman and Rogers argue that voice is one of the main aspirations amongworkers and that unions usually best serve this function. n11 Freeman and Rogers describe a process of positiveescalation in the workforce, whereby unions bring to their employers' attention problems in the organization, and inresponse, the employers find channels of communication to reach their respective employees. n12 Freeman and Rogers'sarguments are based on studies that demonstrate a higher rate of programs with employee involvement in organizationswith unions. The main arguments they developed in the book in the context of unions n13 and voice are detailed below.

First, based on studies in which Freeman and Rogers surveyed [*241] employees' preferences for voice, theyargue in favor of a greater preference for representation through associations, rather than solving problems individually.n14 Thus, they argue that in many aspects of work relations, people feel more comfortable in raising their problemsthrough employee associations, rather than doing it alone. n15 Second, they argue that employees in workplaces withunions have more opportunities to be heard when compared to employees who do not belong to unions. n16 Third, theyargue that employees experience greater satisfaction with their current legal instrument when they are employed throughunions. n17 This argument is supported by the fact, that among those who belong to unions, 90 percent of the employeesprefer their current status. n18 In contrast, among those who are not union members, only 65 percent preferred theircurrent status. n19 While the presumed symmetry that underlies this finding might need to be reexamined, n20 it suggeststhat the preference for unions is not simply a situation where people resist any change in their current status, but rathergenuine preferences for unionization. In contrast to union members, who express almost unanimous preference for

Page 315 Empl. Rts. & Employ. Pol'y J. 237, *239

unionization, the preference for unions among non-members is a function of their (lack of) voice andsocio-demographic status. Hence, the main argument made in the book finds an overwhelming preference for unions,mainly due to the collective desire to gaining a greater voice in the workplace. n21 From their data, it is clear thatnon-unionized employees are less happy with their current level of voice and are less satisfied with the legal instrumentthat governs their work relations.

One of the arguments provided in the context of motivation to unionize emerges from Brayson and Freeman's studyof British workers' preferences for voice. n22 Their reported findings suggest that unions are seen as better equipped tosolve a wide range of problems. For example, when problems are related to the workplace as a whole (i.e. employment[*242] discrimination), there is a greater preference for unions by both unionized and non-unionized employees. n23

In this paper, we attempt to broaden the scope on the nature of association between voice and unions. While werecognize that the line of scholarship described above has contributed dramatically to the understanding of collectivevoice, we think that it should be supplemented by taking into account some of the individual-psychological attributes ofvoice. In particular, we attempt to understand how the factors associated with personal involvement in the contractingprocess are weighted in comparison to the advantages of greater bargaining power achieved through unions. In the nextsection, we stress the importance of taking into account the individual-psychological attributes of voice as means forgreater employee satisfaction and cooperation, by presenting arguments derived from the procedural justice literature.

B. Voice and Procedural Justice

The concept of "procedural justice" is highly related to the perspective this paper takes on voice in the workplace."Procedural justice" refers to the extent in which the organization operates fair procedures in decisions concerning itsemployees. n24 A related concept is "interactional justice," which refers to the extent in which organizational authorityhandles employees' demands in a humane and dignified manner. n25 When employees feel that their personal needs aretaken into account by the organizational authorities and that they have influence over their working conditions (that is tosay, when greater "voice" is given to the employees from an individual-psychological perspective), there is a greaterlikelihood that they will view the organization as procedurally and interactionally just. n26

A number of empirical studies suggest that the procedural justice through which authorities, either legal ororganizational, exercise their authority shapes their legitimacy. n27 In turn, legitimacy influences whether [*243] theemployees within work organizations obey rules and regulations. n28 These findings indicate that creating procedurallyjust workplaces is one mechanism through which obedience to work-related laws and regulations is encouraged. In thecase of work organizations, when employees evaluate the processes by which decisions are made in their workplace asbeing just, they are more likely to comply with organizational rules. More importantly, they voluntarily adhere to suchrules, saving organizations the significant costs of creating and maintaining an effective surveillance system.

In contrast to the research on voice in the workplace, which focus both on micro and macro perspectives, theprocedural justice literature focuses mainly on the perceptions of the individual employee, who personally expects tohave influence over her working conditions. Thus, according to this literature, one can expect that the effect of voice onthe feeling that there was procedural justice is more likely to come from a personal experience that one's voice washeard, rather than mere knowledge of the existence of institutional channels of voice. n29 In other words, one canspeculate that getting direct voice, in comparison to indirect voice, is more likely to improve one's feeling of proceduraljustice.

C. Direct Voice versus Indirect Voice

An additional route for stressing the complexity in the relationship between voice and unionization is to consider theinterplay between direct and indirect voice. The organizational behavior literature was not always consistent with regardto the relationship between direct voice and indirect voice. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition in theadvantages of voice which is not solely mediated by unions. By comparing the effect of direct voice on employees with


that of indirect voice, Purcell and Georgiadis demonstrate that direct voice has a stronger effect on employees. n30

While Freeman and Medoff had low respect for direct voice, n31 Brayson relied on the 1998 Workplace EmployeeRelations Survey [*244] (WERS98) to argue that direct voice has led to a much greater responsiveness (e.g. updatingemployees, dealing with their concerns, fairness and channels for raising their grievances) of management incomparison to union-mediated voice. n32 According to Bryson, unions often reduce the level of trust and cooperationbetween employees and employers, while direct voice makes communication between the parties easier. n33

However, studies that compared companies that decided to dismantle their unions with companies that decided tomaintain their unions, suggest an advantage in voice for employees in corporations that decided against de-unionization.n34 These studies have shown that even from the perspective of number and quality of voice channels within theworkplace, unionized companies have the upper hand, compared to non-unionized companies. n35 The researchers'choice of corporations for comparison, while carrying some advantages, is problematic on other levels, as thenon-unionized corporations are actually corporations who used to be unionized. n36

To sum up, studies comparing the effects of direct versus indirect voice channels on employee voice, yield mixedresults. Nevertheless, the current discussion of the choice between direct and indirect voice is outcome rather thanprocess-oriented, focusing on which channel of voice would get employees more results. In accordance with the theoryadvocated above, we believe that the comparison of direct and indirect voice should also consider the psychologicaleffect of both processes on the individual employee. In our view, a major instrument that seems to be missing from thediscussion about the association between voice and unions, is the role of personal contracting. Obviously, we recognizethat both organizational and legal scholars have been highly skeptical about the bargaining processes in the workplacefor valid reasons. n37 There are obvious obstacles to contracting by most types of employees. Employers are repeatplayers - they have greater access to legal counsel and in most cases have less to lose from an unsuccessful contractnegotiation.

Most studies that compared the content of personal versus collective contracts have suggested that the content ofthe personal contract [*245] commonly lacks important fringe benefits for the employee. n38 Other studies havesuggested that for the most part, there was limited negotiation occurring between employees and employers. n39

Furthermore, even from a cognitive perspective, it has been suggested by various scholars that the limits of cognition,might lead one to suggest that the state should be skeptical when it comes to the rationality of the contracting parties.n40 Therefore, it would be unrealistic to argue that personal contracts give employees control over their employmentconditions. Nevertheless, it is our belief that even with this in mind, the functioning of personal contracts as a channelfor achieving a direct voice should be studied more carefully, taking into account the psychological effects associatedwith the contracting process.

D. The Psychological Advantages of Personal Contracts

The limits of personal contracts from an outcome perspective are clear. Nonetheless, it is our belief that there is a needto assign greater importance to the psychological processes associated with contracting by the individual employee. Theliterature seems to treat voice as an institution, ignoring the effect achieved following the process of having one's voiceheard by their employer. In that regard, personal contracts have a unique advantage over unionization, where the levelof awareness and involvement by the employee is expected to be greater, even though in some cases the actualbargaining power of the individual employee is usually weaker without unions.

Even though the actual control in the personal contracting process is limited, it is still reasonable to expect that thecontracting process will give the employee at least some sense of control over his or her working conditions. Sense ofcontrol has been associated with a positive mental outlook and has been shown to increase one's overall feeling ofwell-being. n41 If one believes that personal contracting could improve the perceived individual level of sense ofcontrol, it would also be reasonable [*246] to speculate that it would increase the employee's satisfaction of his or heremployment conditions. Because employers are interested in maintaining a reasonable level of satisfaction among theiremployees, they could be interested in contributing to the creation of this sense of control. Even if viewed from an


outcome-oriented perspective that unions often achieve more for their members, from a process-oriented perspective,personal contracts have an advantage that did not get enough recognition in Freeman and Rogers's arguments onoptimizing voice.

Aside from factors such as sense of control and procedural justice discussed above, an additional theory that couldaccount for the contribution of individual contracting to commitment is the cognitive dissonance theory. n42 This theoryrecognizes the influence of personal choice on one's motivation to accomplish a mission and on one's attitudes towardthe consequences of the choice. n43 When an employee regards her employment conditions as a consequence of her ownwill, she tends to perceive them in a more positive light.

To sum up the argument, we believe that although personal contracts may provide limited bargaining power to mostemployees, the contracting process provides employees with a sense of personal involvement in determining theiremployment conditions in a way that is mostly absent from the process of joining a fixed collective agreement. Theincreased personal involvement that accompanies the contracting process results in a higher sense of procedural justice,higher sense of control, and a more positive view of the employment conditions among employees.

E. Challenges to the Unionized Voice Literature

After exploring the individual-psychological attributes of voice (procedural justice, sense of control and influence atthe workplace), and their alleged association with personal contracting, we aim to challenge some of the assumptionsadvocated by the unionized voice literature.

First, it seems that Freeman and Rogers's claim in What Workers Want that employees join unions to gain voicedoes not offer distinction between why employees join unions and their expectations once they become union members.n44 The authors base their argument on the finding [*247] that employees join unions because they lack voice,concluding that employees' main expectation is that unions provide them with more voice. n45 The implied assumption,which we question, is whether the preference for voice is similar in the stage of joining the union and when deciding tostay in it. If, as we believe to be a more reasonable behavioral assumption, such difference exists, then the simpleassociation made between unions and voice might need to be refined. Furthermore, although Freeman and Rogers'sargument concerning employees' motives for unionization might be accurate from a collective voice perspective, it maynot necessarily explain employees' motives from an individual voice perspective. n46 While an employee who seeks toempower the collective strength of his colleagues might prefer unionization, employees who seek to gain individualvoice might prefer direct negotiation with their employers.

An additional omission in Freeman and Rogers's argument on the relationship between voice and unions is relatedto the importance of internal voice mechanisms within unions. n47 As suggested, their underlying hypothesis is thatjoining the union satisfies employees' desire for voice. The level of actual individual voice employees achieve whileworking in unionized workplaces does not seem to be central to their focus. n48 This omission is important, since it ispossible to assume that in most unions, the majority of members are not involved directly in shaping unions' decisionsin dealing with the employer. Hence, except for a core of activists (such as those who are involved in the formation ofthe union in the first place), most union members might not feel that their unique interests and personal opinions aretaken into account. Here too, in Freeman's What Workers Say, this omission is fixed by Peetz and Frost who discuss theimportance of communication between members of the union and the union itself. n49 They recognize the variousdifficulties unions face in getting employees to be involved rather than to "free ride" on the collective effect of unions.n50 To solve this problem, the authors suggest various ways through which unions could become more relevant to themodern workplace. n51

Nonetheless, even this argument does not view voice at the individual [*248] level as crucial for employees'wellbeing in the workplace. The focus is on improving the perceived legitimacy of unions, not to improve the benefitfrom voice toward the employer, which is still assumed to be achieved through the mere process of being a member of aunion. In other words, supporters of the collective voice hypothesis mainly treat voice as the ability of employees to get


strong and effective representation when they confront employers. This line of scholarship, however, has ignored theexperience of individuals having direct voice opportunities toward both the employer as well as the union as describedby the procedural justice literature.

F. Intermediate Summary and Refinement of Research Questions

In sum, we believe there is a point in broadening the scope of research on the relationship between voice and unions.While we recognize that unions are a major tool for indirect voice in employment relationships, we think that thecollective voice literature should account for the advantages of personal contracts, on the one hand, and the possiblepitfalls of unions and collective agreements, on the other hand. We believe that the collective voice literature willbenefit from the distinction between the personal and institutionalized aspects of voice. It is possible to speculate thatthese aspects are in some way contradictory. When individual employees know that they can achieve a greater voicethrough channels that the union provides, they might become relatively indifferent to their personal level of influenceand awareness. Moreover, collective representation might stand in the way of direct communication between theemployer and the employees, thereby decreasing employees' individual level of voice. In contrast, when no union is inthe picture, the individual employee might be motivated to become more knowledgeable, aware, and sensitive to thenature of the relationship with the employer, and more inclined to communicate with the employer over workconditions, given the greater dependency of the employee on his or her personal relationship with the employer. In otherwords, employees might gain more from personal contracts in terms of sense of influence and control, although in manycases they will have more limited bargaining power compared to unionized employees.

Furthermore, taking into account the psychological-individual aspects of voice might lead us to assume that by nothaving a union behind them, individual voice might become more beneficial for employees due to some positive aspectsassociated with the process of individual contracting. While Freeman, Rogers, and other researchers associate the needfor voice [*249] with the need for unions, there are also some unique characteristics of contracting, such as cognitivedissonance, personal choice, and the importance of personal planning of one's future action. Assuming that employeesare given the opportunity to engage in a meaningful negotiation with their employer, it is obviously the case that someof it will disappear once the relationship is based only on collective bargaining.

To emphasize the differences between the individual-psychological aspects of voice that unionized andnon-unionized employees' experience, we will compare the voice received by Israeli employees with personal contractsand collective agreements n52 in organizations with and without unions. In particular, this paper will examine theaccuracy of several arguments.

While on the one hand we share with Freeman and his colleagues the positive perspective on voice and itsdominant role in accounting for employee preference for legal instruments, and we also share the positive role ofunionization in providing collective voice for employees, we claim that the association between voice and unions ismore complex than the message evident from their accumulated research. We argue that because of their lack ofpersonal involvement in forming their employment relationship and due to the existence of a body that monopolizes therepresentation of employees' concerns, unionized employees are not necessarily more likely to benefit, at leastsubjectively, from their voice opportunities. Such differences in subjective experience could translate to greaterresponsiveness by the employee and better trust in the employment relationship.

Based on the assumed psychological advantages of personal contracts, we hypothesize that for employees whosemain legal instrument is a personal contract, their level of influence on the contract, awareness as to its content, andsatisfaction from its content will be greater in comparison to employees whose main legal instrument is a collectiveagreement. Furthermore, based on our argument that the current literature misses the importance of personalinvolvement in accounting for employee satisfaction, we will examine whether the level of influence the employeeholds predicts his or her satisfaction from the legal instrument.

In addition to higher levels of influence, awareness, and satisfaction, we also expect to find higher levels of


responsiveness to the employers' [*250] behavior among employees with personal contracts. In comparison,employees with collective agreements rely mainly on unions in their dealings with the employer and become less awareand less sensitive to the treatment they get from their employer. Therefore, we expect unionized employees' attitudestoward their legal instrument to be less dependent upon their past negotiating experience in the workplace.

Another aim of this study is to examine the "antecedents" of support for unions among the unionized employeesthemselves. Freeman and Rogers claim that employees see unions as a means to attain voice and influence. n53 As aresult, they call for unions to provide members with more opportunities to express themselves and influence uniondecisions. However, by taking an individual-psychological perspective of voice, we suspect that one of theconsequences of collective bargaining is the reduction in the role of individual employees in negotiating over theiremployment conditions. From this perspective, it is unlikely that unionized employees view unions mainly as tools forgaining individual voice, and their support for unions is probably shaped by factors other than influence over unions'decisions, namely the unions' instrumentality in providing better working conditions. Therefore, the level of individualvoice and influence over the union, on one hand, and the level of support for unions, on the other hand, may not beinterrelated among unionized employees.

To validate these arguments, the proposed empirical research will attempt to answer the following questions:

. What is the role of voice (from psychological-individual perspective) in setting employees' preferences concerninglegal instruments in their workplace, relative to other factors, such as job security or employability? Furthermore, towhat extent is the role of individual voice different among employees with collective agreements or personal contracts?

. What type of legal instrument - collective agreement or personal contract - provides employees with higher levelsof awareness to the contracts' content, sense of influence over work conditions, satisfaction from the contract,willingness to act upon the contract, and willingness to keep with the current legal instrument?

. What is the relative importance of individual voice within the union, on the one hand, and work conditions, on theother hand, in accounting for unionized employees' attitudes toward their [*251] unions?

III. The Case Study: Voice Preferences among Israeli Employees

While the main motivation for this empirical project is driven by a general theoretical approach to voice and unions, thefocus on Israeli employees carries a potential to investigate an issue that was mainly examined in the Anglo-Americancontext, in a workforce with its own characteristics and employment relations history. n54

Throughout most of its history, a large share of the Israeli workforce were members of the Histadrut - the GeneralLabor Federation, which enjoyed far reaching influence over state authorities and the Israeli economy. As Cohen andhis coauthors describe, employment relations in Israel were mainly based on cooperation between the General LaborFederation, the State, and organizations representing employers. In this manner, major decisions concerning employees'employment conditions reflected the power balance between those institutions, and took into account a variety ofinterests. n55 In an important study by Haberfeld, which was based on a survey conducted in 1982, 80 percent of theemployees in Israel were union members and even those employees who were not union members were affected by thecollective bargaining of the General Labor Federation. n56

During the 1980s and 1990s, Israeli society witnessed a dramatic decline in the strength of the General LaborFederation, in the willingness of the State to cooperate with it, and in the willingness of workers to be members of theassociation. n57 While the strength of the General Labor Federation weakened, many localized labor unions - which aredesigned to take care of employees in specific organizations or industries - gained importance in the economy. n58

Nevertheless, changes in the structure of the labor market, which were evident in Israel as well as in the rest of theindustrialized world, reduced the popularity of unions among Israeli employees. n59 Therefore, Israeli employees' trustin unions and their [*252] willingness to be unionized is lower today than it was three decades ago. n60


Researchers see the weakening of unions as an expression of ideological and social changes in Israel. For instance,Cohen and colleagues argue that the reasons for the decline in unions are related to the decline in social solidarity,greater belief in self, decline of traditional industries, and increase in the power of less traditional industries. n61 Kristal,who argues that some of the support for collective agreement is based upon belief in equality, finds that there is arelationship between the decline of unions and the rise of income gaps in the Israeli society (32 percent rise in incomegaps between the 1980s and 1990s). n62

In spite of the claims described above, Israeli society still expects its state authorities to help prevent exploitation ofweaker employees and reduce gaps in income. n63 Similar to many European countries, Israeli state authorities are muchmore dominant in shaping employment relations by means of legislation and taxation than are their counterparts in theUnited States. n64 Unlike in the United States, Israeli unions are not perceived as the sole instrument for empoweringemployees. n65

Another unique characteristic n66 of the Israeli labor market is the reliance on collective agreements, which areprevalent even among employees who are not unionized. In Israel, union membership and collective agreementcoverage are less congruent than in most economies of the Anglo-American world. n67 Although in our study, wemeasure both unionization and coverage, we focus on coverage under collective agreement as the main distinctivecharacteristic of the Israeli workforce.

[*253] Examining the antecedents of support for unionization is particularly interesting in the Israeli context, dueto the social and economic trends described above. As mentioned by Harel and his coauthors, individual differencesamong employees are much more relevant today in shaping support for unions in Israel than they were in the past. n68

While three decades ago the willingness to be unionized was almost universal, today it depends on the characteristics ofthe individual employee. n69 Furthermore, Cohen and coauthors highlight a "representation gap," which characterizesthe Israeli labor market - while many employees under collective agreements wish to get rid of the restraints theseagreements impose on them, other employees (mainly, but not only, the weaker ones) seek to join unions or collectiveagreements as a way to guarantee better working conditions. n70

While, indeed as suggested, the Israeli case is interesting, the fact that it differs from the U.S context in number ofways might limit the ability to generalize from our findings to other countries and to the U.S in particular. The mostnotable factors are related to the existence of the General Labor Federation, which contributes to the fact that much ofthe activity of the unions doesn't happen in the plant itself but rather on a larger scale. Second the facts we presentedabove about the gap between coverage and union members make the status of unions in Israel different from that in theU.S. Third, the welfare state in Israel, as well as the state-initiated laws on employment protection, are much stronger;hence the need for unions is reduced in the first place.

The context of the sample, therefore, suggests an additional research question which should be addressed:

. What is the importance of the Israeli context in comparison to current studies of the Anglo-American workforce?In particular, is the role of the welfare state in Israel substantial in employee preference for union versus non unionizedworkplaces?

A. Method

1. Sample

We tested our propositions by administering questionnaires to a representative sample of Israeli employees. The data isbased on a [*254] telephone survey of 606 employees from diverse industries, who were randomly assembled andcompleted questionnaires during 2007. All of the participants worked at least twenty hours a week. The survey wasconducted by Midgam Research Institute and the sampling method guaranteed appropriate representation of employeesfrom different segments of society and different geographical areas. n71


2. Measures

To understand the effects of voice and other employee characteristics on employees' preferences and their choices oflegal instruments, we focused on measuring employees' attitudes toward specific legal instruments, while consideringindividual and organizational factors that might influence those attitudes. n72

a. Attitudes towards Legal Instruments

Respondents were asked to rate their level of support for each legal instrument (personal contract, collective agreementthrough union, state regulation). n73

b. Employee Characteristics

To characterize the participants and measure their relative status in the organization, they were asked to answerquestions regarding demographic background and organizational status (such as gender, age, income, socio-economicstatus, and education). In addition to the objective measures stated above, we found it important to measure employees'subjective experience in the workplace. Therefore, the participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreedwith several statements. These statements were combined into six factors of subjective strength: voice (two items; i.e."the management is willing to hear my opinion regarding my employment conditions"); intention to stay (two items; i.e."I intend to stay in my current workplace in the foreseeable future"); job-satisfaction (three items; i.e. "I am pleasedwith my current employment conditions"); [*255] job-employment security (two items; i.e. "my future in the companyis guaranteed"); opportunity of exit (three items; i.e. "there is demand in the labor market for someone with myprofessional background"); confidence in dealing with contracts (four items; i.e. "my employer has no advantage overme while negotiating my employment conditions").

c. Experience with Unions

To control for the participants' experience with unions, they were asked whether they currently work in a unionizedworkplace and whether they are union members themselves. Participants who work in unionized places were asked torate the extent to which they felt the union improved their employment conditions. In addition, we found it important tomeasure not only participants' level of voice toward the management (as mentioned above), but also their level of voicetoward the union. Therefore, union members were asked how much influence they had over union decisions.Participants also indicated whether they were covered by a collective agreement or by a personal contract (7.9 percentof the sample didn't know what type of contract they had and therefore were excluded from further analysis). Ouremphasis on collective coverage, as opposed to union membership (although both were measured) is based on Cohenand coauthors' work, who claimed that the Israeli economy is characterized by high rates of collective agreementscoverage, which exceeds unionization rates.

d. Organizational Characteristics

We measured several factors concerning the nature of the workplace, such as occupational sector and number ofworkers in the company.

e. Attitudes towards Current Legal Contract

To explore the participants' feelings and perceptions of their current legal instrument, we asked them whether they wereemployed by collective agreement or personal contract. After stating their relevant legal instrument, participantsanswered ten questions related to attitudes toward their contracts, whether collective or personal. The items werecombined into five factors - awareness of details of the contract (three items; i.e. "I am aware of the rights I deserve bymy collective agreement/ personal contract"); satisfaction from contract (three items; i.e. "If I could I would change alot in my collective agreement/ personal contract" - reversed); influence on contract (one item; "I had influence over the


content of my [*256] collective agreement/ personal contract"); willingness to act upon contract (two items; i.e. "I willfeel bad if I break the commitments, which I took upon myself by signing the collective agreement/ personal contract");trust the employer to act upon contract (one item; "There is a good chance my employer will honor the agreementbetween us"). Furthermore, we asked participants whether they were exposed to details of their contract, whether theyexperienced crisis in their workplace, and to what extent their rights were respected during the crisis, if a crisis hadhappened. We also asked participants to rate the extent to which they wanted to carry on with their current legalinstrument (collective agreement or personal contract).

B. Findings

In the following statistical analyses, unless mentioned otherwise, demographics n74 as well as number of workers in thecompany n75 are controlled for. We also controlled for type of legal instrument, unless it was entered into the analysis asan independent variable.

1. Prevalence of the Different Legal Instruments in Israel

About 21 percent (N=129) of the respondents declared they were union members, 54.3 percent (N=329) of therespondents stated there was no union in their workplace, and the remaining 24.4 percent (N=148) of the respondentshad unions in their workplace, but they were not union members themselves. n76 As for coverage, about 57 percent(N=345) of the respondents stated that they were employed through personal contracts and 35 percent (N=213) statedthat they were employed through collective agreements. About 7.9 percent (N=48) of the respondents did not knowwhether they were employed through collective or personal contracts, and, therefore, they were omitted from furtheranalysis. Overall, these figures are in accordance with other studies that were conducted in Israel in the current decade,corroborating the validity of our sample. n77

Table 1 presents unionization rates among employees with personal contracts and collective agreements. Although44.1 percent of those who were employed through collective agreements were not unionized, we did [*257] not findany substantial differences in attitudes between unionized and non-unionized employees who were employed throughcollective agreements. Therefore, in the following analysis, we use the concept of unionized employees and employeeswhose main legal instruments are collective agreements interchangeably. n78

Table 1Unionization Rates among Employees with Collective and Personal Contracts

Unionized Non-unionized Non-unionized Total

(workplace with (workplace without

union union

Collective 44.6% 44.1% 11.3% 38.2%

agreement

Personal 8.4% 14.8% 76.8% 61.8%

contract

Total 22.2% 26% 51.8%

With regard to distribution of demographic variables among employees with collective agreements and personalcontracts, in our study, those who were employed through collective agreements were generally older (t(542)=4.753,p<0.001), more educated (t(542)=2.525, p<0.05) and with higher incomes (t(437)=2.877, p<0.01) than those withpersonal contracts. These findings are in accordance with current surveys concerning employment relations in Israel. n79

2. Employees' Attitudes towards the Different Legal Instruments


Prior to examining our theoretical propositions, we wanted to examine the general views of the Israeli workforce of themain legal instruments measured in this study. We started by conducting a repeated measures Anova test, wherepreference for legal instruments were measured as within-subject variable.

A significant difference was found in preference for the various legal instruments (F(2,746)=5.61, p<0.01 &gkh;2=.02). Specifically, as evident from pair-wise comparisons, employees preferred state intervention over both [*258]direct negotiations with their employer and over collective negotiation through unions. Overall, the findings indicatethat Israeli employees expect the state to intervene and regulate employment conditions. There is no clear pattern forpreference between personal contract and collective agreements (although it seems that unions are somewhat lesspopular than we might expect). While state intervention was originally measured to control for the uniqueness of thecase of the Israeli workforce - having a dominant state based labor and welfare regulatory regime seems to have animportant role in shaping the preferences of employees for collective versus individual bargaining.

3. Controlling for Familiarity

One of the major limitations we had to account for is related to the fact that employees would just prefer the instrumentthey already have, not the one they truly think is better. To examine the possibility that employees were simply judgingtheir current status as being the most desired one, we conducted a Mancova test, where the type of contract was enteredas an independent variable and preference for legal instrument were the dependent variables. It was found that overall,there was a significant difference for the type of the contract regarding the preference for legal instrument, as appears inthe multivariate test (F(3,335)=18.06, p<.001, &gk h;2=.14). Univariate tests indicated that those who currently havecollective agreements, prefer collective agreements more than those who currently have personal contracts(F(1,337)=32.93, p<.001, &gk h;2=.09) and those who have personal contracts prefer personal contracts to a largerextent than those who currently have collective agreements (F(1,337)=26.00, p<.001, &gk h;2=.07). Table 2 containsthe means and standard deviations.

[*259] Table 2Adjusted Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for the Preference for Legal Instrument Variables by the Type of theContract n80

Type of legal instrument

Collective Personal

agreements contracts

Preference for legal instrument M SD M SD

Collective agreements 8.58 2.21 6.69 3.35

Personal contracts 6.53 3.08 8.12 2.45

State laws 8.05 2.88 7.97 2.69

Thus, as predicted, there was a substantial familiarity effect where unionized employees preferred collective agreementto a greater extent than non-unionized employees and vice versa. n81 To control for the inadvertent effect of familiarityon our measures of employees' voice preference, in subsequent relevant analyses the current legal instrument ofparticipants was controlled for.

4. Preference for Collective versus Individual Contracting as a Function of Economic Status

Our next empirical test aimed at identifying the type of employees who will have greater preference for personalcontracts over collective agreements as their main legal instrument. We first started with an attempt to differentiatebetween employees based on their relative "objective" strength, which we define by their economic-demographic status.


Based on the argument made by Bryson and Freeman for the association between need and desire for voice, n82 wecould speculate that the weaker the employee, the more likely the employee will have a preference for unions, as theemployee would be less likely to possess the self-reliance in order to negotiate his or her employment conditions.

To test the relevancy of economic status, we have examined the relative influence of various demographic factorsupon the attitudes toward the various legal instruments. A series of hierarchical regression equations [*260] wasconducted separately for each of the legal instruments, in which number of employees and type of contract werecontrolled first and demographic factors were entered second.

As evident from table 3, n83 a relatively strong effect was found for economic status. The higher the economicstatus of the employee, the smaller the preference for collective agreement and state legislation. Furthermore, moreeducated employees were less likely to prefer collective contracting, and older employees were less likely to preferpersonal contracts.

Table 3.

Demographic Antecedents of Preferences for Legal Instruments n84

Collective Personal State

agreements contract Laws

Step I II I II I II

No. Employee -.02 .02 .01 .02 -.11* -.08

Personal contract -.29*** -.31*** .30*** .27*** -.01 -.03

SES -.22*** .00 .11*

Education -.15*** -.06 -.06

Age .04 -.13** -.08

Gender .03 .00 .21***

Total R2 0.8*** .17*** .09*** .11*** .01 .08***

As can be seen from table 3, the predictive power of the economic status was the strongest in comparison to otherfactors such as gender, age, and education. Nevertheless, all socio-economic factors are consistent in suggesting that thestronger the employee is, the less likely he or she is to prefer a collective agreement or state intervention.

5. Preference for Collective versus Individual Contracting as a Function of Voice and Other Subjective Elements inthe Workplace

The other natural aspect that characterizes the strength of the employee aside from his or her socio-economic status isthe potential association between employees' subjective experience of empowerment in the workplace and theirpreference for the type of legal instrument. It is [*261] plausible to expect that employees who feel empowered in theirworkplace will be more likely to prefer personal contracts, above and beyond their socio-economic status. For thatpurpose, the relative influence of subjective strength upon the preference for the various legal instruments wasexamined. A series of hierarchical regressions was conducted separately for each one of the legal instruments. Factorsrepresenting the current legal instruments were entered second (after demographics), and the six factors associated withsubjective force were entered last. n85

While four of the six subjective strength factors positively predicted preference for personal contracting, the othertwo were associated with alternative instruments. More specifically, it was found that the employment security factorpositively predicted preference for collective contracting (&gk b;=.10, p<.05) and state legislation (&gk b;=.16, p<.01).


The intention to stay in the current workplace was also a positively predicting preference for state legislation (&gkb;=.10, p=.051). The factors voice (&gk b;=.22, p<.001), satisfaction (&gk b;=.21, p<.001), exit (&gk b;=.17, p<.01),and confidence in dealing with contract (&gk b;=.13, p<.05), however, were all in favor of positively predicting greaterpreference for personal contract. Overall, these findings suggest that the more empowered the employee feels in theworkplace, the more interested the employee is in being governed by a personal contract. Employees who see theirfuture in their current workplace tend to prefer either state legislation or collective agreements. Furthermore, thefindings emphasize the importance of voice in determining preference for legal instrument, as has been suggested beforeby Freeman and others. n86

6. Moderators of the Preferences for Voice

The association between subjective strength and preference for legal instruments, as described above, is in fact morecomplex. An interesting interaction emerged between the current level of voice the employee has and the current legalinstrument regarding preference for collective agreements. For employees who were employed through personalcontracts, voice negatively predicted their preference for collective agreements (&gk b;=-.14, p<.05). For employeeswho were employed through collective agreements, however, their level of voice was not predictive of their preferencefor collective agreements.

On one hand, the interaction reaffirms the assertion made by Freeman [*262] and Rogers that those who areemployed through personal contracts value unions, especially if they lack influence over their working conditions. n87

On the other hand, it exposes a problem which has not been developed enough in the current literature of unionizedvoice. Unionized employees' preferences are far less influenced by factors related to subjective experience in theworkplace such as awareness, voice, and knowledge, in comparison to non-unionized employees. In our view, this gapsuggests a potential failure in unionized voice, as without the responsiveness of their preferences to the level ofinfluence they get, employees are less and less likely to get voice opportunities. Furthermore, the lack of correlationbetween voice and preference for personal contracts among the participants who were unionized, suggests that gaining avoice is not the reason to stay within the unions. In contrast, a correlation between voice and preference for their currentinstrument was found only among participants who were employed through personal contracts. Those who wereemployed through personal contracts and already had a voice, resisted the change to collective agreements. Thus, onlyfor employees who were employed through collective agreements, voice was not a factor in shaping their preferencesfor legal instruments. A counter argument which one might raise is that employees who are employed under collectiveagreements, don't care so much for their level of awareness and influence in the workplace, since they are certain thatgiven the existence of the union, they don't need to be on alert with regard to their current level of voice. To furtherexamine this point, in the next section we will analyze whether this gap demonstrates a consistent difference in theimportance of voice to unionized versus non-unionized employees.

7. Antecedents of Support for Unions among Unionized Employees

As suggested in the previous paragraph, our findings indicate a relative indifference to voice among unionized workers.We wanted to further explore this hypothesis, by examining the factors that determine unionized workers' support forunions.

To this aim, a hierarchical regression equation was conducted for the participants who claimed to be unionmembers, where the dependent variable was the extent to which the employees wanted to keep their current legalinstrument. Items concerning the extent to which employees felt the union had improved their working conditions, andthe extent to which the employees felt they had influence over union decisions, were [*263] entered as well.

While a significant positive effect emerged for working conditions improvement (&gk b;=.28, p<.05), influenceover the union was not predictive of unionized employees' willingness to stay unionized (&gk b;=.01, p>.05).

Therefore, while being a strong predictor for employee preference in general, voice (as measured by a feeling of


influence over union decisions) does not play a role in determining unionized employees' preferences. The only factorthat influences the desire of unionized employees for unionization is their unions' instrumentality in achieving betterconditions. This finding contradicts earlier claims made by some researchers claiming that unionized employees mainlysee unions as means towards gaining more influence in the workplace as individuals. n88 It seems that, in this context aswell, some of the explanation for the differences between our findings and those of previous scholars might have beenrelated to the characteristics of collective bargaining in Israel and the lack of need for ratification of collectiveagreements by employees.

8. Responsiveness to Voice among Unionized and Non-Unionized Employees

The relative lack of sensitivity of unionized employees to their subjective experience at work (voice in particular) whencompared to non-unionized employees, required further analysis. We found support for this hypothesis in severalanalyses based on data we accumulated using other parts of the survey instruments.

First, we explored whether the way the employee was treated during a crisis with the organization shaped its trust inthe employer, based on the employee's legal instrument. n89 A hierarchical regression equation was conducted for theemployee's trust in the employer's intention to perform the agreement, where factors representing the current legalinstrument and the respect towards the employee's rights in the crisis, were entered.

A significant interaction was present between the type of contract and level of respect. Under personal contracts,respect was highly predictive of the trust factor (&gk b;=.77, p<.01). Under collective contracts, however, respect didnot significantly predict the criterion. These analyses further support our argument that under personal contracts, peoplewill be more sensitive to employer behavior than those in collective agreements.

The greater responsiveness of employees in personal contracts when [*264] compared to collective agreements isfurther supported by examining the interplay between employees' attitudes towards their contract. n90 Specifically, weexamined the relative role of influence in determining satisfaction in collective agreement and personal contractsettings. A hierarchical regression was conducted for the employee's satisfaction from the agreement, where factorsrepresenting the current legal agreements and the level of influence upon the contract as well as an interaction termbetween those variables were entered. A significant interaction was present between type of contract and influence.Under personal contracts, influence positively predicted the satisfaction factor (&gk b;=.34, p<.001). Under collectivecontracts, however, influence did not significantly predict the satisfaction.

In summary, we see that in the context of personal contracts, in comparison to collective bargaining, influence andexperience play a greater role in shaping employees' attitudes toward legal instruments. In a sense, our findings suggestthat when people become members of unions, as opposed to those engaged in personal contracts, they tend to beindifferent, although it might be possible to speculate that employees who are employed through collective agreementsare simply more trustful of their employer because of the protective power of the union. Our argument for theoversimplified account of voice is nonetheless demonstrated in these findings.

9. Employees' Attitudes towards Collective Agreement and Personal Contract

Thus far, we have examined the importance of factors such as voice, relative bargaining power, and socio-economicpower in predicting employees' preferences for the legal instrument which would govern their employment relationship.However, the current methodology didn't give us the opportunity to understand the relationship between all these factorssimultaneously. Hence we wanted to investigate the role of these variables in shaping employees' satisfaction from theircontracts: trust in the employers' intention to fulfill the contracts, willingness of the employee to act according to thelegal instruments (compliance), and desire to stay with the current contracts.

To this end, we used the path analysis method which was applied by the software package AMOS 7, as it has theadvantage of exploring the relationship among all variables of interest at the same time. The AMOS [*265] software


helps create a diagram which illustrates the hypothesized set of relationships among all measured factors.

To evaluate the overall fit of the model, the chi square statistic (&gk c;2), the comparative fit index (CFI), the rootmean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the root mean square residual (RMR) were used. The chi squarestatistic (&gk c;2) is usually applied as a goodness of fit significant p value which indicates that the model fits the data.n91

Prior to the analysis, factor scores were subjected to covariation for potential confounder variables includingpersonal background variables (gender, age), socio-economic strength, n92 subjective experience in the workplace, n93

and number of workers in the organization. n94 The final path analysis model is presented in figure 1. n95

[*266] Figure 1: The Relationship between Occupational Arrangements and Attitudes towards the Contract n96

Figure 1

As shown in figure 1, the estimated path coefficients between the type of legal instrument, awareness, and influencewere positive and significant. In other words, it was found that having a personal contract led to higher awareness andinfluence. The percentage of explained variance was higher for influence (19 percent) than for awareness (6 percent)due to the higher direct effect of type of contract upon influence (&gk b;=.34) than upon awareness (&gk b;=.24), aswell as an indirect effect of type of contract upon influence which is mediated by awareness. Furthermore, awarenessand influence were positively and significantly related to satisfaction with the arrangements and willingness to complywith them. The explained variance for those two factors was similar (10 percent, 11 percent, respectively). Therefore,the model implies that influence and awareness mediate the relationship between type of contract and satisfaction fromit, as well as compliance. In other words, personal contract leads to greater satisfaction from the arrangement andgreater willingness to comply with it when compared to collective agreement, mainly because it gives the employeegreater sense of awareness and influence over the contract.

We can also see from the model that satisfaction was positively and significantly related to desire to stay with thecurrent contract. The percentage of the variance explained by the model for the desire to stay with the current contractindicates that the model possessed overall predictive strength for this factor. Thus, satisfaction with the arrangements[*267] served as a mediator between type of contract and desire to stay with it. n97 Interestingly, the modeldemonstrated a significant direct negative association between personal contract and desire to stay with the currentcontract; those who held a collective agreement had more desire to keep their current arrangement than those who held apersonal contract.

In sum, according to the path model, employees with personal contracts are more satisfied with their contracts andare more willing to act upon them, as compared to employees with collective agreements. These connections aremediated by a sense of influence, and to a lesser degree by awareness as to the content of the contract. It was also foundthat the model possessed an overall predictive strength for the desire to stay with the same legal instrument: personalcontract leads to higher desire to stay, an association which is mediated mainly by satisfaction with the legal instrument.The type of contract, however, also exerted a direct negative effect upon the desire to stay, according to which having acollective agreement increased the desire to stay with the current contract.

Since our main focus in this article is to revisit the argued association between unions and voice, it is important toaddress the discrepancy between unionization and employment through collective agreements at this point. Earlier wefound that only 44.6 percent of the employees who were employed through collective agreements were unionized. Somemight find it reasonable to categorize unionized employees with collective agreements and non-unionized employeeswho are still employed through collective agreements as two distinct groups. To examine this possibility, a series ofhierarchical regressions was conducted separately for each of the factors discussed in the path-analysis (influence,satisfaction, awareness, compliance and trust in employer, desire to stay with current contract). Only employees withcollective agreements were entered in the analyses. The question of whether an employee is unionized was entered


second (after demographics). These analyses did not reveal any significant association between unionization amongemployees with collective agreements and influence (&gk b;=-.09, p>.05), satisfaction (&gk b;=.08, p>.05), awareness(&gk b;=-.138, p>.05), compliance (&gk b;=-.15, p>.05), and trust in employer (&gk b;=-.126, p>.05). We also foundno correlation between unionization among employees with collective agreements and the desire to stay with the currentcontract (&gk b;=-.034, p>.05). These results show that in our sample there were no significant differences betweenunionized and [*268] non-unionized employees who are employed through collective agreements. Hence, the findingsderived from the path-analysis are relevant to unionized as well as non-unionized employees with collectiveagreements.

10. The Moderating Effect of Socio-Economic Strength

After demonstrating the differences in function of influence and satisfaction from the contract on preference forpersonal contracts versus collective agreements, we move to examine whether these differences are relevant toemployees with different socio-economic backgrounds. To this end, a hierarchical regression equation was conductedfor the level of influence upon the contract, where factors representing the current legal agreements and thesocio-economic status as well as an interaction term between those variables were entered.

A significant interaction was present between type of contract and socio-economic status. Among participants withhigh and intermediate socio-economic status, those who were employed by personal contract were more likely to have agreater influence upon their contracts than those who were employed by collective agreements (&gk b;=.55, p<.001,&gk b;=.38, p<.001, respectively). For employees with lower socio-economic status, however, a personal contract didnot lead to more or less influence than collective agreements.

A similar analysis was conducted for satisfaction from the legal instrument. A hierarchical regression equation wasconducted, where factors representing the current legal agreements and the socio-economic status, as well as aninteraction term between those variables, were entered.

Here too, a significant interaction was present between type of contract and socio-economic status. Onlyparticipants with high and intermediate socio-economic status, who were employed by a personal contract, were morelikely to be satisfied with their contract compared to collective agreements (&gk b;=.35, p<.001, &gk b;=.15, p<.05,respectively). For employees with lower socio-economic status, however, personal contracts did not lead to more or lesssatisfaction compared to collective agreements.

Finally, a hierarchical regression was conducted to account for the desire to continue with the current agreements,where factors representing the current legal agreements and the socio-economic status, as well as an interaction termbetween those variables, were entered. A significant interaction was present between type of contract andsocio-economic status. Only for higher socio-economic status, those who were employed by personal contract weremore likely to stick with the current agreements in [*269] comparison to collective agreement (&gk b;=.15, p=.09). Nodifference, however, was found with regard to intermediate or low socio-economic status.

A similar regression was conducted, using income instead of socio-economic status as an indicator of economicstrength. In accordance with the former analysis, a significant interaction was present between type of contract andincome. The pattern is slightly different: the desire to stick with collective agreements for the lower paid employees washigher than the desire to stick with personal contracts (&gk b;=-.26, p<.01). Among employees with intermediate orhigh income, there was no difference between those who were employed through a personal contract and those whowere employed through a collective agreement, in their desire to stick with the current legal instrument.

Overall, we can see that the argument we developed thus far is limited by socio-economic status consideration. Theadvantages of personal contracts over collective agreements in terms of both influence and satisfaction are morerelevant for stronger employees. Nevertheless, even for the weaker employees, collective agreements provide neitherinfluence nor satisfaction to a greater extent than personal contracts.


IV. Discussion

On the one hand, our findings support some aspects of Freeman and Rogers's argument regarding the importance ofvoice to employees' satisfaction from the workplace. n98 On the other hand, our findings put into question claims madeby Freeman and Rogers and others, who consider unions to be the primary tool to gaining a voice. n99 By relying on anindividual-psychological perspective to voice, instead of an institutional perspective, our findings point to theadvantages of personal contracts over collective agreements in providing employees with sense of influence over theircontracts and involvement in their formation.

In accordance with Freeman and Rogers's views concerning the importance of voice, n100 our findings indicate thatvoice was found to be associated with preference for legal instruments; employees' sense of influence over the contracthighly predicted their level of satisfaction from the contract and their willingness to act upon it, which in turn increasedthe employees' willingness to continue with their current legal instrument. [*270] Furthermore, in accordance withFreeman and Rogers's arguments on the relationship between need and voice, n101 our data confirms that preference forcollective agreements was prevalent mainly among weaker employees - those who feel that they do not have voice.

We demonstrate, however, that the desire for voice and the instruments people associate with it depend on morefactors than accounted for by Freeman, Rogers, and others. First, our findings suggest that while voice was a dominantpredictor in shaping preference for legal instruments, other factors such as job satisfaction, confidence in dealing withcontract and employment security were also as strong in predicting the preferred legal instrument among ourparticipants. Moreover, satisfaction from the improved employment conditions by unions, rather than the level of voicetoward the union, was the main predictor of the employee desire to be a union member. This suggests the need toexamine in further studies the change unionized employees experience while joining unions, since our study was notdesigned to examine changes in employees' attitudes over time. Further analysis should examine whether at some pointin the process, the importance of voice declines, and whether the main reason for the decision to stay in a union wasmainly related to whether the employees were satisfied with the employment conditions the union provided. Thischange might be related to a perception that upon joining a union, voice becomes less important or unnecessary. In anyevent, voice towards the union was not a factor unionized employees considered as part of the desire to be unionized.

This conclusion highlights the need to distinguish between employee voice towards the union and employee voicetowards the employer. Although we found that unions are not expected by their members to provide them with the sensethat they have influence over unions' decisions, they might still be perceived as an institutional tool for employees togain influence as a group in dealing with their employer. This distinction is not fully recognized by the currentliterature, however, and in that respect our findings revisit claims made by researchers such as Peetz and Frost, whooffer unions to provide more voice to their members as a means of preserving their relevancy. n102 Pinchuk-Alexanderexpressed such views in the Israeli context, claiming that in our times, employees value issues of self-expression andinfluence more than in the past, and in order to adapt to their members' needs unions should focus on those issues and[*271] provide their members with channels to express themselves. n103 Contrary to Peetz and Frost, andPinchuk-Alexander's theories, our findings suggest that unionized employees' willingness to remain unionized is notdependent upon the level of voice they have toward their union, but rather on the unions' instrumentality in providingbetter working conditions. n104

Considering the relation between type of contract and voice, there seems to be a consistent pattern in our study thatemployees who are not employed through collective agreements are much more sensitive to their level of voice as wellas their subjective experience. This pattern might point out to some potential failure in workplaces with collectiveagreements, in which employees, notwithstanding support of their current legal instrument, are relatively indifferent totheir status and the voice they get. It might be the case that employees trust unions so much that they become apatheticwith regard to what the employer does for them or how much voice the union provides. Nonetheless, the main argumentstill holds that being part of a collective agreement makes the individual employee less rather than more likely to beconcerned about his or her influence in the workplace. Thus, the relationship between the desire for voice andunionization, which has been suggested by the current literature, is oversimplified.


Furthermore, the pattern that emerges from our findings suggests that voice on a personal level is much moreprevalent among employees with personal contracts, compared to those with collective agreements. Those who areemployed through personal contracts sense that they have more influence over their contract, are more aware of itscontent, and are more satisfied by it, compared to those who are employed through collective agreements. In addition,as a consequence of their relatively high sense of influence over their contract, employees with a personal contract aremore willing to comply with its terms compared to employees with a collective agreement. This particular findingidentifies another incentive for the organization to employ its workers through personal contracts instead of collectiveagreements. Nevertheless, the linkage we describe between contracting, sense of influence, and willingness to act uponthe contract is in accordance with studies from the procedural justice perspective, which suggest that there is anassociation between the voice given to employees, organizational legitimacy, and employees' willingness to obey rulesand regulations. n105

[*272] Our findings are also in accordance with studies that emphasize the importance of personal choice andinvolvement in ones' behavior. n106 According to these studies, if people felt they had a personal choice in their actions,they would be more committed to them. n107 Relying on this perspective, we suggest that the act of negotiating overone's personal contract creates a clearer mental representation of one's employment relations, and thereby increasesone's satisfaction from the contract and one's willingness to act upon it. We believe that our findings concerning therelative lack of voice among the unionized broadens the scope of the literature dealing with voice and unions. While thecurrent literature perceives unions as the ultimate tool for employee voice in issues concerning employment conditions,n108 our findings demonstrate the advantages of personal contracting in providing voice to employees, at least whenmeasured subjectively. The gap between the way Freeman, Rogers, and others view the relationship between voice andunions, and the way we view it, might be explained by the different perspectives we take - while most of theemployment relations literature focuses on the institutional dimensions of voice, we took a more personal andpsychological perspective, focusing on the sense of influence of the individual employee. Our findings demonstrate thatthe psychological dimension of voice is relevant to shaping employees' attitudes even in the context of employmentconditions, which is considered to be the most instrumental and outcome-oriented aspect of work. While ourconclusions might not diminish studies taken pursuant to an institutional perspective, they shed light on an aspect ofcontracting that didn't get the attention of the literature dealing with unions.

Furthermore, these theoretical findings, carry an important policy concern we wish to emphasize. The "blind" trustunions enjoy by their members and the lack of feeling of involvement and awareness might harm not only thewell-being of the employee, but even the long term preference for unions. If unions don't make it a priority to interactwith their members, they might find it hard to keep employees who can do better on their own. Indeed, we have shownthat greater preference for unions in the individual level depends on a large part on their ability to give the individualemployee better work-conditions.

[*273] Another contribution of the current study is the opportunity it provides to examine attitudes towardunionization and contracting in the Israeli context. Our findings suggest that relative to the wide support for unions inthe Anglo-American world, Israeli employees are somewhat less supportive of unions. Israeli employees did not prefercollective negotiation through unions over direct negotiation with the employer. The relative lack of support for unionsamong Israeli employees might be explained by the major role ascribed to state authorities by the employees.Respondents in our study preferred state intervention over both direct negotiation with the employer and collectivenegotiation through unions. Although the welfare state has suffered a major blow in recent decades, n109 it is stillexpected to function and protect employees' rights. We believe that state authorities in Israel are perceived as a viablealternative to unionization as a means to provide the safety net most employees need. With state authorities as aprotector of employees' rights, Israeli employees do not view unions as the sole instrument to protect them.

V. Conclusion: Limitations and Future Research

Having described the advantages of personal contracts in providing voice to the employees and keeping them interestedin voice, we do not wish to overstate our argument in favor of personal contracting. It is important to note that


unionized employees, especially the weaker ones, were very interested in continuing with their current instrument.Furthermore, the advantages of personal contracts over collective agreements were mainly relevant for moderate tostronger employees, who could use the flexibility of personal contracts toward better working conditions. In that regard,there is no doubt that the existence of unions was justified for weaker employees, at least for the benefits achievedthrough collective bargaining.

Our study is further limited in its ability to replicate participants' contracting experience. Future research shouldgather more information on the contracting process itself, not only on the voice and influence one has in the workplace.Without such information, it is hard to determine whether the advantages of personal contracts over collectiveagreements are mainly due to the psychological benefits inherent to contracting, or mainly due to the barriers unionsplace to the communication and relationship between employers and employees. However, our findings with regard tothe advantages of personal contracts over collective agreements, in terms of [*274] individual voice and satisfactionfrom the contract, stand for themselves.

In addition, there are obvious limitations to the survey approach we have taken that limit our ability to speak aboutemployees' preferences in a way which fully exclude aspects such as familiarity and constrained choice, as discussedabove. It seems that this justification is not based on their voice, however, which is stronger overall among contractualemployees. Maybe other factors such as safety net or job security are responsible for the preference for unions, but therole of voice was oversimplified according to our findings.

As mentioned, we believe our findings indicate that Israeli employees with collective agreements tend to be moreindifferent to their working conditions and less aware of the details of their agreements, compared to employees withpersonal contracts. However, these conclusions should be taken with caution while attempting to generalize them tolabor markets outside Israel. For instance, unionized American employees tend to be highly politicized, militant, andaware of their entitlements. The difference in attitudes between Israeli and American employees might be explained byseveral factors, such as different roles of state authorities in regularization of employment relations, the uniquehistorical routes of the unionization movements in Israel and in the U.S, and the particular segments of the workforcewho tend to get unionized in both societies. Future studies should further explore attitudes toward unions, collectiveagreements, and personal contracts among employees from different historical contexts and cultural backgrounds.

It is our hope that further studies would continue to explore the antecedents for employees' choice of voice,accounting for both institutional and individual characteristics of the employee in attempting to identify the optimalvoice for employees. One way to examine the role of voice in unionization and in personal contracting would be tomeasure directly the extent to which the individual employee considers voice as important in issues concerningemployment conditions. In the current study, we used an indirect approach to address the issue, but our conclusionsshould be further established by relying on direct measures. Understanding the experience of individuals with thedifferent channels of voice is crucial in accounting for all relevant factors. Finally, it is clear that repeating such analysisin other countries is crucial if one is interested in a more generalized argument.

[*275]

Appendix 1 - 1st Stage of Employee Survey

Respondents were asked to consider their primary workplace while answering the questionnaire. As mentioned in theMethodology section, in addition to the items below, respondents were questioned about their gender, age, ethnic origin,education, income, socio-economic status, and number of employees in their current workplace.

Subjective experience at the workplace


Q1. Please rate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements, on a scale of 1 (don't agree at all) to10 (fully agree):

1.1. The management is willing to hear my attitudes concerning working conditions.

1.2. I have actual influence over my working conditions.

1.3. It is hard for me to see myself leaving my current workplace.

1.4. I intend to stay in my current workplace for the foreseeable future.

1.5. The management at my workplace cares about its employees' welfare.

1.6. My work relations are good.

1.7. I am pleased with my current working conditions.

1.8. There is no chance I will lose my job in the foreseeable future.

1.9. My future in the company is guaranteed.

1.10. If something bothers me in my workplace, I will immediately transfer to another workplace.

1.11. I will face no difficulties finding another workplace in a reasonable amount of time with similar workingconditions.


1.12. There is demand in the labor market for someone with my professional background.

1.13. I am very familiar with the legal aspects of working relations.

1.14. I am completely confident in my ability to defend my legal rights as an employee.

1.15. My employer has no advantage over me while negotiating my employment conditions.

1.16. In the past, I got everything I wanted regarding working conditions thanks to my own effort.

Preference for legal instruments

Q2. In which way would you want your legal rights as an [*276] employee to be defended at the workplace? Rate eachof the following statements on a scale of 1 (do not want at all) - 10 (want very much):

A. Representation through collective agreement or workers' union in my workplace.

B. Representation through the General Labor Federation, which will negotiate with State Authorities over my legalrights as an employee.

C. Direct negotiation between myself and my employer over my personal contract.

D. By State Authorities, through laws implemented to protect my rights as an employee.

Experience with unions and employer


Q3. Are employees in your workplace organized by a union?

1. Yes 2. No

If yes, please answer the following questions:

Q3.1 Are you a member of a union in your workplace?

1. Yes 2. No

If yes, how much influence do you have over the union decisions? (1-not at all; 10 - a great deal)

Q3.2 To what extent does the union in your workplace improve your working conditions? (1-not at all; 10 - a great deal)

Current legal instrument at the workplace

4. By which legal instrument are you employed?

1. Collective agreement 2. Personal contract 3. Don't know

Attitudes toward legal instruments n110

If employed by collective agreement:

5. How much do you agree with each of the following statements, on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 10 (totally agree)?


5.1 I am aware of the content of the collective agreement in my workplace.

5.2 I am aware of my obligations to which I agreed by signing the collective agreement in my workplace.

5.3 I am aware of the entitlements I deserve by the collective agreement in my workplace.

5.4 The employment conditions I receive by my collective [*277] agreement are relatively good compared to otherworkplaces I know.

5.5 I had influence over determining the content of the collective agreement in my workplace.

5.6 I will feel bad if I do not act upon the obligations I took upon myself by signing the collective agreement.

5.7 There is a good chance I will try to act upon the obligations I took upon myself by signing the collective agreement.

5.8 There is a good chance my employer will act upon the collective agreement.

5.9 Compared to my current employment conditions, I would have received better conditions under a personal contract.

5.10 If I could I would change a lot in my collective agreement.

6. Did you ever read your collective agreement?

1. Yes 2. I did not read it at all 3. I read parts of the agreement


7. Were you ever involved in a legal conflict over your entitlements as an employee? 1. Yes 2. No

7.1 If Yes, to which extent were the entitlements you deserve by your collective agreement respected?

8. To what extent would you like to continue being employed under your current legal instrument? (1-not at all; 10 - toa great deal)

If employed by personal contract:

9. How much do you agree with each of the following statements, on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 10 (totally agree)?

9.1 I am aware of the content of my personal contract.

9.2 I am aware of my obligations to which I agreed by signing my personal contract.

9.3 I am aware of the entitlements I deserve by my personal contract.

9.4 The employment conditions I receive under my personal contract are relatively good compared to other workplacesI know.

9.5 I had influence over determining the content of my personal contract.

9.6 I will feel bad if I do not act upon the obligations I took upon myself by signing my personal contract.

9.7 There is a good chance I will try to act upon the obligations I took upon myself by signing my personal contract.


9.8 There is a good chance my employer will act upon the [*278] contract.

9.9 Compared to my current employment conditions, I would have gotten better conditions under a collectiveagreement.

9.10 If I could I would change a lot in my personal contract.

10. Did you ever read your personal contract?

1. Yes 2. I did not read it at all 3. I read parts of the contract

11. Were you ever involved in a legal conflict over your entitlements as an employee? 1. Yes 2. No

11.1 If yes, to which extent were the entitlements given to you under your personal contract respected?

12. To what extent would you like to continue being employed under your current legal instrument? (1-not at all; 10 - agreat deal)

Legal Topics:

For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics:Copyright LawOwnership InterestsWorks Made for HireLabor & Employment LawEmploymentRelationshipsEmployment ContractsConditions & TermsGeneral Overview

FOOTNOTES:

n1. E.g., Richard B. Freeman & James L. Medoff, What Do Unions Do? 3-25 (1984); Richard B. Freeman & Joel Rogers, What WorkersWant 39-64 (1999).

n2. Freeman & Medoff, supra note 1, at 3-25.


n3. Id.

n4. Freeman & Rogers, supra note 1, at 65-89.

n5. The meaning of voice has been interpreted differently by scholars from different disciplines. See Peter Ackers et al., Partnership andVoice, With or Without Trade Unions: Changing UK Management Approaches to Organisational Participation (Loughborough Univ.Business Sch. Working Series Paper No. 4, 2003). In this paper, we refer to "voice" as a feeling of influence on part of the individualemployee (in accordance with the organizational behavior literature), and not as a code name for unionization or collective bargaining.

n6. Tom R. Tyler & Steven L. Blader, Can Business Effectively Regulate Employee Conduct? The Antecedents of Rule Following in WorkSettings, 48 Acad. Mgmt. J. 1143, 1153-54 (2005).

n7. Tom R. Tyler & Steven L. Blader, Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement 189-200(2000); David Lewin & Daniel J.B. Mitchell, Systems of Employee Voice: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, 34 Cal. Mgmt. Rev. 95(1992); Jeffrey Pfeffer, Six Dangerous Myths About Pay, 76 Harv. Bus. Rev. 109 (1998).

n8. Alex Bryson et al., Worker Voice, Managerial Response and Labour Productivity: An Empirical Investigation, 37 Indus. Rel. J. 438,453-54 (2006); Alex Bryson, Employee Voice, Workplace Closure and Employment Growth 7 (Policy Studies Inst. Research DiscussionPaper 6, 2001).

n9. Stephen F. Befort, A New Voice for the Workplace: A Proposal for an American Works Councils Act, 69 Mo. L. Rev. 607 (2004);Bruce E. Kaufman & Morris M. Kleiner, Introduction, in Employee Representation: Alternatives and Future Directions 1, 4-11 (Bruce E.Kaufman & Morris M. Kleiner eds., 1993).

n10. Freeman & Rogers, supra note 1.


n11. Id. at 39-64.

n12. Id. at 140-55.

n13. Id.

n14. Id. at 82-83.

n15. Id. at 55.

n16. Id. at 79-80.

n17. Id. at 80.

n18. Id. at 69.

n19. Id.

n20. Since empowering employees in dealing with their employers is the aim of employee voice in the first place, we might expectnon-unionized employees to view unions as an instrumental tool for improving their well-being at work, to a greater extent than we shouldexpect unionized employees to blame their unions for non-satisfactory work conditions.



n22. Alex Bryson & Richard B. Freeman, What Voice Do British Workers Want?, in What Workers Say: Employee Voice in theAnglo-American Workplace 72 (Richard B. Freeman et al. eds., 2007).

n23. Id. at 86-87.

n24. Gerald S. Leventhal, What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships, inSocial Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research 27, 35 (Kenneth J. Gergen et al. eds., 1980).

n25. Robert J. Bies & Joseph S. Moag, Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria of Fairness, in Research on Negotiation inOrganizations 43, 43-55 (Roy J. Lewicki et al. eds., 1986). Some scholars, such as Tyler, view interactional justice as a sub-component ofprocedural justice. See Tom R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law 3-7 (2006).

n26. John Thibaut & Laurens Walker, Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis 121-24 (1975); Tyler, supra note 26, at 3-7; Leventhal,supra note 24, at 53-55.

n27. See, e.g., Tom R. Tyler et al., Armed, and Dangerous (?): Motivating Rule Adherence Among Agents of Social Control, 41 Law &Soc'y Rev. 457, 466-70 (2007) (discussing studies).

n28. Tyler & Blader, supra note 7, at 77-87; Tyler & Blader, supra note 6, at 1148-49; Tyler et al., supra note 28, at 464-85.

n29. The relevance of procedural justice to the contracting process is enhanced by taking the perspective of the group-value model,advocated by Tyler, supra note 26, at 161-69. According to this model, the main function of procedural justice is to provide employees withthe feeling that they are valued members in the organization. Id. We believe employees might feel more valued as individual employees


when the employer directly negotiates with them over their conditions, compared to signing over a collective agreement.

n30. John Purcell & Konstantinos Georgiadis, Why Should Employers Bother with Worker Voice?, in What Workers Say, supra note 22, at181, 183-92.

n31. See Freeman & Medoff, supra note 1.

n32. Alex Bryson, Managerial Responsiveness to Union and Nonunion Worker Voice in Britain, 43 Indus. Rel. 213, 234-35 (2004).

n33. Id.

n34. See Deakin W. Brown et al., Dep't of Trade and Indus., The Individualisation of Employment Contracts in Britain 58-65 (1998).

n35. Id.

n36. Id.

n37. See, e.g., Ian Ayres & Stewart Schwab, The Employment Contract, 8-SPG Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 71 (1999).

n38. See, e.g., Mark. Freedland, The Personal Employment Contract 33-35 (2003); Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt & Timothy A. Haley,Governance of the Workplace: The Contemporary Regime of Individual Contract, 28 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J. 313, 348 (2007).


n39. Brown et al., supra note 35, at 48-57; Stephen Evans & Maria Hudson, From Collective Bargaining to "Personal" Contracts: CaseStudies in Port Transport and Electricity Supply, 25 Indus. Rel. J. 305, 312-13 (1994).

n40. See, e.g., Melvin Aron Eisenberg, The Limits of Cognition and the Limits of Contract, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 211 (1995).

n41. Lawrence C. Perlmutter & Richard A. Monty, The Importance of Perceived Control: Fact or Fantasy?, 65 Am. Scientist 759, 759-65(1977); Susan Folkman, Personal Control and Stress and Coping Processes: A Theoretical Analysis, 46 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 839,839 (1984).

n42. Leon Festinger, Conflict, Decision and Dissonance 1-7 (1964).

n43. Id. at 152-58.

n44. See Freeman & Rogers, supra note 1, at 65-89. Our criticism toward Freeman and Rogers's lack of care for individual voice ismitigated when one considers Freeman's sequel book which is based on a collection of papers reviewing unionized voice in theAnglo-American workforce. See What Workers Say, supra note 22. In many of the papers accumulated in this volume, a more refinedargument emerges in favor of the advantage of gaining a voice through unions. See generally id.


n46. See id.

n47. See id.


n48. See id. at 157-201, apps. A-E.

n49. See David Peetz & Ann Frost, Employee Voice in the Anglo-American World: What Does It Mean for Unions?, in What Workers Say,supra note 22, at 166, 179-80.

n50. See id. at 173-74.

n51. See id. at 175-80.

n52. While most studies investigated union membership, we believe that the type of contract held by employees is more relevant to thepurpose of the current study and to the employment structure in Israel. This discrepancy will be addressed in the sections to follow. In thatregard, Israeli law is somewhat different from the American laws in that both unionized and non-unionized employees could be regulated atleast partially by either personal contracts or collective agreements.


n54. See Guy Mundlak, Fading Corporatism: Israel's Labor Law and Industrial Relations in Transition (2007) (reviewing the history andcharacteristics of Israel's workforce).

n55. Yinon Cohen et al., Rates of Unionization and Coverage under Collective Agreements: Past, Present and Future. 10 Lab, Soc'y & Law(Isr.) 15, 17 (2004).

n56. Yitchak Haberfeld, Why Do Workers Join Unions? The Case of Israel, 48 Indus. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 656, 659-60 (1995).


n57. Yinon Cohen et al., Unpacking Union Density: Membership and Coverage in the Transformation of the Israel IR System, 42 Indus.Rel. 692 (2003).

n58. Id. at 708.

n59. Id. at 708-09.

n60. Cohen et al., supra note 55, at 40, 42-45.

n61. Id.

n62. Tali Kristal, Decentralization of Collective Agreements in Israel: 1957-1998, 9 Lab., Soc'y & Law (Isr.) 17, 36-38 (2002). A similarargument can be seen in Nava Pinchuk-Alxander, New Directions for Unions in the 21st Century, 10 Lab., Soc'y & L. (Isr.) 51-55 (2004),suggesting that the decline in unions in Israel is related to the decline of social solidarity. In contrast, Harel, Tzafrir and Bamberger arguethat the changes in unions' membership are not related to a change in demographics but rather to opposition to socialism. Gedaliahu Harel etal., Institutional Change and Union Membership: A Longitudinal Analysis of Union Membership Determinants in Israel, 39 Indus. Rel. 460,482-84 (2000).

n63. Clara Sabbagh, Evaluating Society's "Spheres of Justice": The Israeli Case, 66 Soc. Psychol. Q. 254, 266 (2003).

n64. Id. at 254-62.

n65. Id.


n66. Cohen et al., supra note 57, at 695-97. This uniqueness is mainly with regard to U.S. audience, given that in the U.S. context, thepresence of a collective bargaining agreement under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Act does have the legal effect of excludingindividual contracting. 29 U.S.C. § 159(a) (2006). On that angle the Israeli case study is not true from a British or continental Europeanperspective, where this is also the case. See Lord Wedderburn, Labour Law 2008: 40 Years On, 36 Indus. Law J. 397, 398-407 (2007).

n67. Cohen et al., supra note 55, at 17-18.

n68. Harel et al., supra note 62, at 482-84.

n69. Id.

n70. Cohen et al., supra note 55, at 38-42.

n71. Overall, the sample comprised of 49.5 percent women with an age range of eighteen to seventy-six (mean age forty), 74.4 percent ofthe respondents were native born Israeli Jews, 15 percent were Jewish immigrants, and 10.6 percent were Israeli Arabs).

n72. See Appendix I, infra, for the full questionnaire.

n73. As mentioned, our main purpose was to examine employees' attitudes toward personal contracts, on the one hand, and collectiveagreements, on the other hand. However, we believed that measuring support for state intervention would help us gain a better understandingof the views concerning legal instruments in employment relations, which were prevalent in different segments of the Israeli workforce.

n74. Specifically, we controlled for economic status, income, education, gender, and age.


n75. It was important to control for number of workers in the company since there was a negative association between this variable andsome of the parameters of subjective strength in our study. Furthermore, the potential negative relation between company size and voice ismentioned in the literature.

n76. Since the survey is based on a representative sample of Israeli employees, we believe that the unionization rate in our sample closelyreflects the current employment pattern in Israel.

n77. Cohen et al., supra note 55, at 35.

n78. As suggested previously, this gap is one of the differences between the Israeli sample and that of Freeman and Rogers's study. SeeFreeman & Rogers, supra note 1, at 55-38.

n79. See, e.g., Cohen et al., supra note 55, at 36.

n80. Means are adjusted for covariates of gender, age, education, socio-economic status, income, and number of employees. Higher valuesindicate stronger preference.

n81. Obviously, the familiarity effect could be explained in the reverse direction, where employees who chose an instrument, did so becauseof their pre-existing preferences. For the research questions we explore in this study, the direction of the effect is less relevant.

n82. See Bryson & Freeman, supra note 22, at 72, 78-93.

n83. The hierarchical regression equations were followed by multicollinearity test. We found no evidence for multicollinearity among thefactors representing objective strength.


n84. All coefficients are standardized. (p<.05. p<.01. p<.001).

n85. Due to multicollinearity considerations, the subjective strength factors were entered in separate equations.

n86. See, e.g., Freeman & Rogers, supra note 1, at 140-55.

n87. See id.

n88. See, e.g., Peetz & Frost, supra note 49, at 176-77.

n89. Only respondents who claimed they had been involved in a crisis with the organization were part of the analysis) N=58).

n90. For detailed description of the items designed to measure attitudes toward the contract, see Appendix I, infra.

n91. The CFI is related to the total variance accounted for in the model and a value close to 1 is sought. The RMSEA and the RMR arerelated to the residual variance, and values close to 0 are sought.

n92. Socio-economic strength was estimated using three variables: economic status (a transformed five-point Lykert type scale anchored1(low) to 5 (high)), income level (a ten-point scale anchored 1(low) to 10 (high)) and education (a six-point scale anchored 1(low) to 6(high)).


n93. Subjective strength was the averaged score of six factors: voice, willingness to stay in the organization, job satisfaction, job security,exit, and confidence in dealing with contract.

n94. This was realized by means of computing a series of multiple regression equations and retaining the residuals as new variables with thevariance accounted for by the various covariates removed.

n95. & x<2>(7)=9.88, p=0.196.

n96. Path model demonstrating the relationship between occupational arrangements and persistence covariating for personal backgroundvariables (gender, age), objective strength, subjective strength, and organizational attributes. All values relating to the paths are standardizedregression coefficients (&gk b;). Type of legal instrument was measured by a dichotomous variable (1 = collective agreement, 2 = personalcontract). In the order of the variables and factors in the figure, higher mean values indicate having personal arrangements, greater awarenessand influence, higher satisfaction, compliance, trust in employer, and greater desire to stay with the current contract.

n97. Awareness and influence mediated the relationship between occupational arrangements and desire to stay with the current contract viasatisfaction but also exerted a direct influence upon the desire to stay, as it was found that the higher the awareness and influence, the greaterthe desire to stay.

n98. See Freeman & Rogers, supra note 1, at 65-116.

n99. See id. at 140-55.

n100. See id. at 39-64.

n101. See id. at 140-55.


n102. See Peetz & Frost, supra note 49, at 176-80.

n103. See Pinchuk-Alexander, supra note 62, at 56, 67-70.

n104. See Peetz & Frost, supra note 49, at 176-80; Pinchuk-Alexander, supra note 62, at 56, 67-70.

n105. Tyler & Blader, supra note 7, at 77-87; Tyler & Blader, supra note 6, at 1153-55; Tyler et al., supra note 27, at 479-83.

n106. See, e.g., Inna D. Rivkin & Shelley E. Taylor, The Effects of Mental Simulation on Coping with Controllable Stressful Events, 25Personality & Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1451 (1999).

n107. Edwin A. Lock & Gary P. Latham, Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works! 20-26 (1984); Rivkin & Taylor, supra note106, at 1456-61.

n108. E.g., Freeman & Rogers, supra note 1, at 140-55.

n109. Tali Kristal, supra note 62, at 38.

n110. Participants were asked to answer one of the following sections (if employed by collective agreement/if employed by personalcontract), according to the current legal instrument at their workplace, as indicated by Question 4. The order of the following sections isarbitrary, since the survey was conducted by telephone, and each participant was exposed only to the relevant section.


---- End of Request ----Download Request: Current Document: 1Time Of Request: Saturday, February 22, 2014 19:16:17

Documents

What Employees Really want